Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Voting Strategy 101

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Voting Strategy 101

    These forums have seen many discussions on voting strategy. The notable ones include the following:

    • Voting for your favorite candidate regardless of whether they have a chance to win
    • Voting for your favorite candidate only if they have a reasonable chance to win
    • Voting for the lesser of two evils
    • Not voting because there are only two evils


    Here's what happened when the voters in Louisiana choose the first option:

    Landrieu: 42%
    Cassidy: 41%
    Maness: 14%

    Do the math. I have zero respect for Maness, trying to run when he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. His greed/pride/ego (pick one) handed the race to Landrieu on a silver platter.

    Nor do I have no respect for those who stupidly throw their votes away on people like Maness. Clearly, they weren't thinking at all, and for their folly, the get to see gun-hating Landrieu in office instead of either Republican.

    As for the list of options above, 2 and 3 work. 1 and 4 do not. They never have. Option 1, well... You've seen the results of Option 1. As for Option 4, just ask yourself what's preferable? Half-bad? Or full-bad? By not voting for half-bad, you removed your vote of opposition to full-bad. In effect, you're saying you'd rather sit on the couch and be served full-bad because you were lazy, instead of working towards something only half as bad. I'm sorry, but that's as stupid as letting your roof rot because you're too lazy to reshingle it.

    How people trick themselves (or allow others to trick them) into believing otherwise is unfathomable.

    This subset of Gaming Theory should be required reading all grades from middle school on.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Not voting is multi-faceted. What you are analyzing are numbers based on actual votes. Those numbers mean nothing unless you give them meaning. You'll not convince anyone to vote by asking them to play a role in some game that they apparently don't understand, or in your words, "I'm sorry, but that's as stupid as letting your roof rot because you're too lazy to reshingle it."

    You're saying to vote for who you think will win or vote for the lesser of two evils, and you're calling people who don't vote, "lazy." If those are the only options, then I'll never vote. You're alienating an entire voting block that you could have swayed using some better logic.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    You're saying to vote for who you think will win or vote for the lesser of two evils, and you're calling people who don't vote, "lazy." If those are the only options, then I'll never vote. You're alienating an entire voting block that you could have swayed using some better logic.
    If that's what you believe, that if this is the case, you'll "never vote," then by all means stay away from the polls!

    People lose their shirts every day in Las Vegas because they believe in luck instead of the hard, cold facts of statistics. They don't understand the basics. I used to live there, and have seen it first-hand on several occasions. Sad.

    Similarly, Americans vote themselves out of house and home on a regular basis because they too don't understand the basics.
    Last edited by since9; 11-07-2014 at 12:50 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Right, by using counter-intuitive voting tactics like voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting for who you think will win instead of the candidate with the best principles. Compromise is how rights are lost.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Should ask the GOP not to run anyone and just have a libertarian run ... most GOP members would vote against the dem and many dems would vote for the libertarian.

    Problem solved.

  6. #6
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Should ask the GOP not to run anyone and just have a libertarian run ... most GOP members would vote against the dem and many dems would vote for the libertarian.

    Problem solved.
    +1 Illuminati confirmed
    Last edited by The Truth; 11-07-2014 at 02:42 AM.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Should ask the GOP not to run anyone and just have a libertarian run ... most GOP members would vote against the dem and many dems would vote for the libertarian.

    Problem solved.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    +1 Illuminati confirmed
    Disagree. Both tactical and practical FAIL. It is an "only in your dreams" solution.

    Tongue in cheek reply understood, but attempted humor is not an answer to a very real problem.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Nonsense thread.

    1. Third party votes tend to take equally from both of the primary parties.

    2. Individual votes are statistically irrelevant.

    3. As for me personally, I would never, ever vote (R). Period. It's not an option. Not on the table.

    Your attempt to apply "game theory" is laughably shallow.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,193
    From Ross Perot on voting third party has resulted in democratic wins.

    Sorry having been a former third party voter one has face the facts, third parties have handed a lot of wins to the democrats.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    Republican Senate takeover gives neocons, war hawks bully pulpit

    While there will be pushback from isolationist voices in the party’s libertarian wing, it won’t take center stage, according to senior Republican congressional advisers who say that after years of standing by while the Obama administration has pursued a “lead from behind” foreign policy, the GOP is now poised to push the White House toward a more decisive leadership posture on the world stage.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...hawks-neocons/

    The democrats and their easily swayed muddled middle have been the majority for a longtime and will be again if the GOP does not abandon progressivism (making things better) and become truly conservative - rescind, repeal, remove, impeach. Night of the long knives like.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Folks in LA who voted for who they thought would win were the folks who voted for Landrieu.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    The muddled middle speaks! 39% of Democrats Want Obama to Run for a Third Term

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...for-Third-Term

    There is no way anti-progressivism can overcome the most powerful force in the Universe.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Disagree. Both tactical and practical FAIL. It is an "only in your dreams" solution.

    Tongue in cheek reply understood, but attempted humor is not an answer to a very real problem.
    And what do you base your analysis upon?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Do the math. I have zero respect for Maness, trying to run when he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. His greed/pride/ego (pick one) handed the race to Landrieu on a silver platter.

    Nor do I have no respect for those who stupidly throw their votes away on people like Maness. Clearly, they weren't thinking at all, and for their folly, the get to see gun-hating Landrieu in office instead of either Republican.

    How people trick themselves (or allow others to trick them) into believing otherwise is unfathomable.

    This subset of Gaming Theory should be required reading all grades from middle school on.
    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

    Convinced of your own infallibility, you steamroll ahead, eyes forced tightly shut, leading all the morons stupid enough to be suckered into your delusion to their "salvation": The mecca of mediocrity.

    YOU are the problem.

    Your ideology has successfully convinced 30% of the population who probably wanted Maness to win to vote for Cassidy out of fear of throwing away their vote.

    BTW: If you keep rewarding a party who keeps putting up $#!tty candidates by voting for them anyway, what is the incentive to put up anything else in the future?

    It's like a room filled with lonely single people acting like happily married individuals, each afraid to say anything revealing the truth out of fear of being the only one laughed at for being alone.

  15. #15
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    These forums have seen many discussions on voting strategy. The notable ones include the following:

    • Voting for your favorite candidate regardless of whether they have a chance to win
    • Voting for your favorite candidate only if they have a reasonable chance to win
    • Voting for the lesser of two evils
    • Not voting because there are only two evils


    Here's what happened when the voters in Louisiana choose the first option:

    Landrieu: 42%
    Cassidy: 41%
    Maness: 14%

    Do the math. I have zero respect for Maness, trying to run when he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. His greed/pride/ego (pick one) handed the race to Landrieu on a silver platter.

    Nor do I have no respect for those who stupidly throw their votes away on people like Maness. Clearly, they weren't thinking at all, and for their folly, the get to see gun-hating Landrieu in office instead of either Republican.

    As for the list of options above, 2 and 3 work. 1 and 4 do not. They never have. Option 1, well... You've seen the results of Option 1. As for Option 4, just ask yourself what's preferable? Half-bad? Or full-bad? By not voting for half-bad, you removed your vote of opposition to full-bad. In effect, you're saying you'd rather sit on the couch and be served full-bad because you were lazy, instead of working towards something only half as bad. I'm sorry, but that's as stupid as letting your roof rot because you're too lazy to reshingle it.

    How people trick themselves (or allow others to trick them) into believing otherwise is unfathomable.

    This subset of Gaming Theory should be required reading all grades from middle school on.
    If this is your mindset then you are not voting, you're gambling.

    Voting is indeed the act of deciding who you believe is the best candidate and filling the dot next to their name on the ballot. That you're unable to see the problem with using a gambler's decision making process to vote, which is a selection process, not gambling, is what is unfathomable. Really, your entire post is enraging. "You principled people are ruining my compromise! Whaaaaa!" Please go cry on a butter's forum, I'm sure they'll be more apt to agree with you.
    Advocate freedom please

  16. #16
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    If this is your mindset then you are not voting, you're gambling.

    Voting is indeed the act of deciding who you believe is the best candidate and filling the dot next to their name on the ballot. That you're unable to see the problem with using a gambler's decision making process to vote, which is a selection process, not gambling, is what is unfathomable. Really, your entire post is enraging. "You principled people are ruining my compromise! Whaaaaa!" Please go cry on a butter's forum, I'm sure they'll be more apt to agree with you.
    Too harsh? I've been trying to be nicer since it's more likely to lead to agreement/changed minds.
    Advocate freedom please

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    ...[*]Voting for your favorite candidate regardless of whether they have a chance to win...
    This is a viable choice, certainly, for those planning on changing things in the long term.

    I know nothing about the Louisiana candidates, but I understand the issue.

    If the lesser of two evils is not sufficiently lesser, than go to option one and SHOW the lesser of two evils that they will not be elected until they are actually a good candidate. Eventually, this party will tire of losing, and run a good candidate. Now you have a good candidate, AND a decent chance of winning.

    Those who always vote in one of the two evils will never have a chance to see that. If you ONLY care about the next term, then I can't really help you understand the difference.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    BTW: If you keep rewarding a party who keeps putting up $#!tty candidates by voting for them anyway, what is the incentive to put up anything else in the future?
    Yes, "game theory" fails to account for this, which means it fails to predict the long-term result, which means it's completely worthless.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    These forums have seen many discussions on voting strategy. The notable ones include the following:

    • Voting for your favorite candidate regardless of whether they have a chance to win
    • Voting for your favorite candidate only if they have a reasonable chance to win
    • Voting for the lesser of two evils
    • Not voting because there are only two evils


    Here's what happened when the voters in Louisiana choose the first option:

    Landrieu: 42%
    Cassidy: 41%
    Maness: 14%

    Do the math. I have zero respect for Maness, trying to run when he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. His greed/pride/ego (pick one) handed the race to Landrieu on a silver platter.

    Nor do I have no respect for those who stupidly throw their votes away on people like Maness. Clearly, they weren't thinking at all, and for their folly, the get to see gun-hating Landrieu in office instead of either Republican.

    As for the list of options above, 2 and 3 work. 1 and 4 do not. They never have. Option 1, well... You've seen the results of Option 1. As for Option 4, just ask yourself what's preferable? Half-bad? Or full-bad? By not voting for half-bad, you removed your vote of opposition to full-bad. In effect, you're saying you'd rather sit on the couch and be served full-bad because you were lazy, instead of working towards something only half as bad. I'm sorry, but that's as stupid as letting your roof rot because you're too lazy to reshingle it.

    How people trick themselves (or allow others to trick them) into believing otherwise is unfathomable.

    This subset of Gaming Theory should be required reading all grades from middle school on.
    If I have heard correctly, Landrieu trails by double digits to Cassidy in the runoff in December. They winner for LA has to get a majority of the vote; Landrieu/Cassidy came up short. Now there will be a runoff. IIRC, the Democratic party has already pulled the runoff ads for Landrieu.

    As to voting....it boils down to this fact, most voters are only educated by a candidate for a brief 15/30 second media spot...meaning many voters vote by what the candidate will/has done that draws their favor; usually one issue. So, are games played...no question. Is it something new....nope, politics have been around as long as working women. Politicians know how to get to the masses...because that's what it's about.

    How to resolve it? Not sure it can 'actually' be done..it can be done in theoretically.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    If I have heard correctly, Landrieu trails by double digits to Cassidy in the runoff in December. They winner for LA has to get a majority of the vote; Landrieu/Cassidy came up short. Now there will be a runoff. IIRC, the Democratic party has already pulled the runoff ads for Landrieu.
    That's encouraging!

    As to voting....it boils down to this fact, most voters are only educated by a candidate for a brief 15/30 second media spot...meaning many voters vote by what the candidate will/has done that draws their favor; usually one issue. So, are games played...no question. Is it something new....nope, politics have been around as long as working women. Politicians know how to get to the masses...because that's what it's about.

    How to resolve it? Not sure it can 'actually' be done..it can be done in theoretically.
    I think so. The mayor's race here in Colorado Springs was tight, and Bach lost, but the vote was close enough for a runoff. That gave us time enough to focus on the deceptions of the other party and counter them in the message forums, replies in news feeds, in editorials, and other media. In the runoff, Bach won.

    The discrepancy was resolved by simple, straightforward education. We only educated a small percentage, but that was enough to turn the tide.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    Right, by using counter-intuitive voting tactics like voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting for who you think will win instead of the candidate with the best principles. Compromise is how rights are lost.
    Wrong. Absolutism is how elections are lost. When elections are lost, rights are lost.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Wrong. Absolutism is how elections are lost. When elections are lost, rights are lost.
    Bam....
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  23. #23
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Wrong. Absolutism is how elections are lost. When elections are lost, rights are lost.
    A win for bad principles is no win at all. It's a lose/lose. See it as you may, we will never agree. That's ok.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    A win for bad principles is no win at all. It's a lose/lose. See it as you may, we will never agree. That's ok.
    Yea.... Jagaloon....
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Nonsense thread.
    Nonsense response.

    1. Third party votes tend to take equally from both of the primary parties.
    It's never "equally," but you're right in that the votes they do pull are usually not enough to alter the outcome of the election.

    However, the reason I specifically mentioned Louisiana's Senatorial race is because Maness wasn't an independent. He was a Republican, same as Cassidy. Both he and Cassidy garnered five to six times more votes from moderates than from liberals, double the conservative votes than votes from moderates, and roughly ten times as many votes from conservatives as liberals.

    Put another way, Maness wasn't pulling any significant votes away from Landrieu. Because both he and Cassidy were Republicans, they were competing head-to-head. Maness was stealing the vast majority of his votes from Cassidy.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	LA Third Party Vote.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	29.6 KB 
ID:	12210

    2. Individual votes are statistically irrelevant.
    Then don't vote.

    3. As for me personally, I would never, ever vote (R). Period. It's not an option. Not on the table.
    Again, then don't vote.

    Your attempt to apply "game theory" is laughably shallow.
    Your understanding of game theory of laughably shallow.

    As it was, Landrieu wound up with 42% of the vote, Cassidy with 41% of the vote, and Maness with 14% of the vote. Since the votes between Landrieu and Cassidy were close enough to hold a runoff, and since 9 out of 10 of Maness' votes would then go to Cassidy, reasonable estimates of a runoff election would pit Cassidy with 55% of the vote to Landrieu's 42%. That's why Landrieu pulled out.

    However, if this had been a state without a runoff, Landrieu would have won.

    THAT's why you NEVER vote a candidate like Maness who has no reasonable chance of winning himself, but who is more than capable of yanking votes away from his politically similar (same party) opponent.

    Come back to the table when you understand iterative deletion and the median-voter theorem, or can explain the difference between moral hazard and hungry lions, or why your approach falls under the category of "backward induction."

    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    From Ross Perot on voting third party has resulted in democratic wins.

    Sorry having been a former third party voter one has face the facts, third parties have handed a lot of wins to the democrats.
    In cases where two of three candidates were conservatives, yes. In the case of Ross Perot, no. He came very close to being the cause for the republican loss, but when you look at the sources of his votes, and discover who they'd have been voting for had he not been in the picture, the simple truth is that while it would have been close, Clinton would still have won. Where Perot helped Bush, Sr. lose the election, however, was the negative association some had with Perot's over-the-top militaristic approach, the same attitude with which he ran Electronic Data Systems. It was a significant turn-off to moderates and more moderate liberals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...for-Third-Term

    There is no way anti-progressivism can overcome the most powerful force in the Universe.
    Lol, which is that? Ignorance, or stupidity?

    Even I'm surprised a full 39% of Democrats want Obama to run a third term. As Spock would say, even at the destruction of the entire world, "Fascinating."

    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

    Convinced of your own infallibility, you steamroll ahead, eyes forced tightly shut, leading all the morons stupid enough to be suckered into your delusion to their "salvation": The mecca of mediocrity.
    I have no such delusions, Superlite. I am most certainly fallible. My convictions rest upon the likes of Professor Pollack: Ben Polak is Professor of Economics and Management in the Department of Economics and the School of Management at Yale University. He received his B.A. from Trinity College, Cambridge University, his M.A. from Northwestern University, and his Ph.D. from Harvard University. A specialist in microeconomic theory and economic history, he has published in Economic Letters, Journal of Economic Theory, Journal of Economic History, Journal of Legal Studies, Journal of Theoretical and Institutional Economics, and Econometrica. His current projects include "Generalized Utilitarianism and Harsanyi's Impartial Observer Theorem" and "Mean-Dispersion Preferences."

    YOU are the problem.
    Ignorance is the problem, as is stupidity. You can fix ignorance, but when people are wilfully ignorant, that can no longer be fixed as it's cross the line into the realm of stupidity. Well-educated, intelligent people are willing to banter ideas about with an open mind. Close-minded people retort with comments like, "YOU are the problem."

    Your ideology has successfully convinced 30% of the population who probably wanted Maness to win to vote for Cassidy out of fear of throwing away their vote.
    Given the fact that perhaps 1/100th of 1% of Louisiana voters ever read these forums, I highly doubt I've had any such effect as you claim.

    However, if that's the case, it would be a good thing, as the polls in existence before I made this post strongly indicated Maness had a very real chance of pulling the election away from Cassidy and handing it to Landrieu on a silver platter, while never getting much closer to winning himself. Again, this was before I made this post, so if you would, please take your made-up "30%" and chuck it in the bayou.

    BTW: If you keep rewarding a party who keeps putting up $#!tty candidates by voting for them anyway, what is the incentive to put up anything else in the future?
    I think the better question might be why the Republican party tends to put up crappy candidates? Here in Colorado, Bob Beauprez won the Republican Primary, but few people consider him to have been the best choice to run against Hickenlooper. In effect, the GOP coughed up a loser.

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one, but I believe it has to do with groupthink, particularly as it's strongly influenced by a few key, powerful people here in Colorado who would rather risk losing the election than seeing someone else in the party win the election.

    It's like a room filled with lonely single people acting like happily married individuals, each afraid to say anything revealing the truth out of fear of being the only one laughed at for being alone.
    That's a good description of groupthink. To be sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    If this is your mindset then you are not voting, you're gambling
    Voting is, by definition, gambling. There are winners and there are losers. You make your best guess as to which way you should vote, but in the end you only have control over your own vote, and not the votes of others.

    Voting is indeed the act of deciding who you believe is the best candidate and filling the dot next to their name on the ballot.
    That is merely one strategy. As I mentioned in the OP, there are four main strategies. Two are viable, and two are not. Yours is a subset of one of the two viable strategies, but taken by itself, it's not viable, for it wastes your vote in those situations where your choice for "best candidate" has no reasonable chance of winning.

    Absent ALL information with respect to how the candidates are doing leading up to election time, it would be a viable choice. In fact, it would be the only viable choice.

    In the presence of additional information, such as the fact that less than one in six voters will vote for him (Maness), the mere act of voting for him anyway is foolish. It's a waste of your vote. You have to ask yourself what's more important: To vote for one candidate regardless of all information? Or to maximize the odds of getting a Republican into office? If it's the former, then I can teach you nothing. If it's the latter, then the only viable strategy is to vote for the Republican candidate most likely to beat Landrieu. Maness didn't have a chance. Cassidy did.

    That you're unable to see the problem with using a gambler's decision making process to vote, which is a selection process, not gambling, is what is unfathomable. Really, your entire post is enraging. "You principled people are ruining my compromise! Whaaaaa!" Please go cry on a butter's forum, I'm sure they'll be more apt to agree with you.
    You're unable to distinguish the difference between strategies. Again, if your strategy is to elect Maness, period, you might as well have saved your time and gas, as there's no way he would have won. If your strategy was to either get a Republican into office or to defeat Landrieu, the only viable choice for both strategies is to vote for whichever opposing candidate stands the greatest probability of beating Landrieu.

    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    This is a viable choice, certainly, for those planning on changing things in the long term.

    I know nothing about the Louisiana candidates, but I understand the issue.

    If the lesser of two evils is not sufficiently lesser, than go to option one and SHOW the lesser of two evils that they will not be elected until they are actually a good candidate. Eventually, this party will tire of losing, and run a good candidate. Now you have a good candidate, AND a decent chance of winning.
    You bring up an excellent point, the difference between single-election tactics and long-term strategy. In game theory, that's known as multiple trials. If the Democrats had not so badly damaged our economy through the insanely stupid and long-debunked strategy of tax and spend, I might be inclined to give things a long-term whirl. When you absolutely have to win in one trial, however, the strategy listed in the OP remains valid.

    Those who always vote in one of the two evils will never have a chance to see that. If you ONLY care about the next term, then I can't really help you understand the difference.
    I honestly didn't read this last sentence before writing my preceding thought, but I see you reaffirmed my position. This time around, the focus was indeed winning the next term.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •